User talk:GRuban

Nomination of Melissa Bachman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Melissa Bachman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Bachman until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Modest Stein

I know you and I are going to continue working on the page, but for what it's worth, I think it's ready for mainspace already. Thanks for all your efforts. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Really? Thanks! Unfortunately, as you can guess, I'm inserting stuff based on the Sasha and Emma book, which is, so far, bulking out the "Early life" section far beyond the "Success" section. So it's kind of unbalanced. Undue weight, and all that. You think that's OK? Or should we revert to something where the sections are roughly equal for the public version, and keep hacking away at the longer version in user space? --GRuban (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, I finished Sasha, and expanded the later section a bit. It still gives more space to 1888-1892 than 1893-1958, but at least no longer several times more. I'll push it to main space soon. If you can find anything more we can write about his magazine work other than just put up all the covers ... and/or if you can find even one 1940s+ cover that we can put up ... that would help too. I also did a DYK review, so we can nominate it for DYK when we push it. --GRuban (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Melissa Bachman removal

The Endangered Species Act(ESA) does not pertain to species outside the United States such a lion in South Africa. I do not believe the Christian Science Monitor is a reliable source on the ESA. However I am a wildlife biologist and actually know something about the ESA. RobDazzler (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not a wildlife biologist, and know nothing about the ESA. However, I do know that the CS Monitor is a reliable source in general, and in this case, they actually cite the specific Fish and Wildlife Service review that they were talking about. "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Initiates Review of African Lion Under the Endangered Species Act". Press Release. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. November 27, 2012. Retrieved 19 January 2016. Of course perhaps the FWS also doesn't understand the ESA, and if they had asked a wildlife biologist would have quickly learned the error of their ways; but at the time, they were, in fact, reviewing it. --GRuban (talk) 07:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but if you actually read the USFWS citation on what listing a species outside the United States does, you would see how it does not pertain. Just because a "reliable" source cites a reliable source it still does not mean the information is relevant. I will concede that the section I removed is technically correct, that they were reviewing it, but it still has no relevance to the article. It was just extraneous info at the end. Feel free to add my removal back. RDaz

You've got mail

Hello, GRuban. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Destiny Leo (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, my Wikimedia email is broken, for several weeks now. I filed https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T123068 but I haven't been able to send or receive Wikimedia email for several weeks now. I've tried to change my email account, but that didn't help, it's something on the Wikimedia side. If you post on this page I can try to answer, but I won't get your mail, and you won't get mine. --GRuban (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Melissa Bachman

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Betty Brosmer

Hi, there is no conflict of interest for you to bring up this subject on the DYK talk page. But I'm happy to do it for you. Thanks for the eagle eye! Yoninah (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Modest Stein

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Jon Ritzheimer

GRuban, the review is yours, so if you think it should be rejected, it's up to you to put that "X" icon up there. You may want to notify LavaBaron on his talk page before doing so or not; the two of us stay off each other's talk pages, so I can't post there myself. While he should be monitoring his own nomination, a courtesy notification using the DYKproblem template can spur action, and is usually recommended when issues have been found in the course of a review. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It's almost there, so seems a shame to X over something that might be easily fixed. Let me ping LavaBaron directly on his talk as you suggested. --GRuban (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

RE: Paulina Vega image

It seems better because it not has a watermark as the other. --186.84.46.227 (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for protecting my Photo and Others from Copyright Infringement. I have corrected my name name on Panaramio. Thanks ChuckBerglund (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

This is about https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Atmospheric_Refraction_Sunrise.jpg? You're welcome! How about changing the rights on that Panoramio photo to cc-by-sa 3.0 as they are on the Wikimedia Commons page, though, to make it clear? --GRuban (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Related Amrita Rao image

I upload a photo of Amrita rao a bollywood actress and giving valid source of pic but you removed it due to permission issues how i fix it... --Hemalove (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The photographer needs to release the rights to it. Most pictures on the Internet are copyrighted, which means you aren't allowed to just reuse them, and Wikipedia cares about that. The Wikipedia needs to be free for everyone to edit and reuse. There are some photographers that allow their images to be reused, mostly by putting their images under a Creative Commons license; Wikipedia can use Creative Commons Attribution, or Attribution Share-Alike. WP:IUP gives more details. They are hard to find, sometimes (though for Amrita Rao, we seem to have seven, which is not bad at all). If you are the photographer who took the photograph, you can put the image under one of those licenses, and we'll be able to use it. But that picture you uploaded was almost certainly taken by a professional, so we will need proof that professional put it under a free license. Often professionals are not willing to do that, because that is how they earn their money, after all. --GRuban (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

got it thank-you i upload one pic which is taken by me with valid source..but i dont understand one thing wiki delete one of my pic which i was uploaded and giving valid source suggested by you... --Hemalove (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

You need to prove the picture was taken by you, and that you have the right to release it under a free license. The usual way to do that is to email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and explain who you are, and how you happened to be the photographer of a clearly posed photograph by a movie star. If, for example, that was taken for a magazine, or a publicity agency, you want to use the official email address for that magazine or publicity agency to prove you represent them, and you want to give details about the image - when and where it was taken - to show you didn't just download it from the internet. WP:DONATEIMAGE has details. --GRuban (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Great to hear from you

It was very nice to hear from you, GRuban. I remember you quite well, and so does Laisha. We're doing well here, living in Maine now. I don't do a lot of Wikipedia stuff, and don't know my way around so well, mostly just adding things that I come across that seem to be missing. We've both been working for Aviva Directory for years now, although not as volunteers, and we've worked on a few other directories since leaving DMOZ. I hope everything is well with you. --Kfander 03:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfander (talk • contribs)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Aw, that's very nice of you, thank you! --GRuban (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Enjoy! I would offer you a fine beer, but I don't know how that would go over. In any event, I invented this template, like the subject and intend to use it! Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

MOSCAPS close

Could you please modify that close? It really, really should not conflate MOS:TM / MOS:CAPS's requirement, for the overwhelming majority of sources showing an exact stylization, which is an independent style guideline, with WP:AT's WP:COMMONNAME, which is a titles-only policy about the underlying name being the same (the Beatles, however styled, vs. the Beetles or the Meatles), which has nothing to do with style and never has. You've closed with a "consensus" that is going to be read by many people as equating the title policy with the style guideline, when they are only superficially similar, and the discussion did not come to anything close to a consensus for such an interpretation.

The present wording is:

Consensus is (1) to use the capitalization found in reliable sources, i.e., WP:COMMONNAME, when that is clear and incontrovertible, and (2) to try to rephrase sentences so they don't start with a term beginning with a lower case letter. Opinions are split on what to do if there isn't a clear and incontrovertible preponderance of usage in reliable sources (whether to use the trademark case or sentence case and common English usage), but MOS:TMRULES is pretty clear that we should stick to our usual sentence case and common English usage in that case, rather than follow the usage of trademark holders.

More accurate wording would be:

Consensus is (1) to use the capitalization found in a clear and incontrovertible preponderance of usage in reliable sources, and (2) to try to rephrase sentences so they don't start with a term beginning with a lower case letter. Opinions are split on what to do if that sourcing requirement is not met (whether to use the trademark case or sentence case and common English usage), but MOS:TMRULES is pretty clear that we should stick to our usual sentence case and common English usage in that case, rather than follow the usage of trademark holders.

I and many others would greatly appreciate it, because if your current close stands it is going to lead to, at a guess, about 5 years of constant strife. One of the most frequent sources of heated but totally pointless debate at RM (and WT:AT, and WT:MOS, etc.) is people confused that WP:COMMONNAME is a style policy, and that if, say, some company or band spells their name "tHe cHich^en d3PARTment" that WP has to as well. This will just dump gallon and gallons of fuel on that fire. Many thousands of articles would be subject to renewed attempts at RM to use "fancy style" because it's what a commercial entity or an entertainer wants for branding purposes.

PS: I do appreciate the effort that went into it. I know this is nuanced issue and it must have been difficult to wade through all that mess.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

G, I came here for the same reason. COMMONNAME is just not relevant here, though there are a few editors who think it has something to say about style. As SMcC points out above, there are styling provisions to rely on here. No need to muddy the waters and encourage those who think we should let outsiders vote on WP styling. As a non-admin closer, you need to be more careful and base closing statements on policy and guidelines in light of editor opinions; please rephrase it to not drag in an irrelevant piece from title policy. Dicklyon (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I add my support to what SMc and Dick are saying here. Tony (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

A good point, gentlemen, thank you for making it. Done per request. --GRuban (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for resolving that. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Freedom Caucus#RFC: far-right

Hi GRuban. I appreciate your effort to bring this dispute to a close, but unfortunately I don't think you followed the proper closure procedure. Your conclusions and arguments are very reasonable but they not appear to represent consensus. The points you make were not made by editors who participated in the RfC; thus you were not gauging consensus but instead adding your own (insightful) take. Would it be unreasonable for me to ask that you undo your close and add your arguments as an additional !vote? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Let me look... No, I'm quite sure I followed the reasoning of the participants, even naming them in each case, so I'm not sure why you think otherwise. Can you explain? --GRuban (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Your position is that the term "far right" can only be used in conjunction with "of the House Republicans" or similar qualifier. I don't think any of the participants in the RfC took that position. (Also, you cite BLP, which none of the participants did. But I understand that was more of a side point.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I also don't think that you can dismiss half of the participants' arguments (which are essentially to enforce our verifiability policy as irrelevant or logically fallacious. We had 3 editors making reasonable arguments for yes, and 3 editors making reasonable arguments for no. I don't see how the RfC can be closed with anything other than "no consensus." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. Thank you Dr., thanks for explaining. I am afraid that in responding I'll have to risk being a bit long repetitive, since I had thought I had explained my close in short in my close; so I won't be able to explain further without repeating parts.

Unfortunately, we didn't have reasonable or equally valid arguments on each side. When one side is saying 2+2=4 and the other side is saying 2+2=5, those can not be equally valid arguments, they're directly contradictory, no more than one can be correct. Usually that doesn't happen, usually one cites a source that says X, and another cites a source that says Y, or one cites a policy A, while the other cites a guideline B, those can be both reasonable or equally valid arguments. Here, they aren't, they are directly contradictory.

The arguments on each side are based on the same policy, as you correctly write, verifiability as expressed in what reliable sources say. "Yes. We should follow what reliable sources say." - Ratemonth. "No. Reliable sources usually reserve that description for groups such as klansmen and neo-Nazis." - TFD. And so forth. People on each side are basing their arguments on what reliable sources say.

Then come the best example of the specific contradiction, "'far right' as used by sources (the far right of the Republican party)" from Toa Nidhiki05 directly answered by "the sources call them far-right. They don't say 'far right of the Republican party'" from Alexander Levian. This is a direct contradiction, they can't both be correct. And this isn't a minor matter, or one of a number of matters that the two sides differ on. This is the heart of the issue. From reading all the arguments presented, this single contradiction best describes the dispute - are the sources describing the Freedom Caucus as far right in an absolute sense, or as far right among the Republicans?

So I looked at the sources presented as arguments. I am actually allowed to do that. Really I am. They're part of the arguments presented. I didn't go out and find my own sources, I looked at the sources you presented. They overwhelmingly, without exception, discuss the "far rightness" of the Freedom Caucus in relationship to the rest of the House Republicans. Not close. Not debatably. Not equally validly. And these aren't just some sources that could have been cherry-picked by the other side, these are the sources you, the opener of the question brought up. In most cases it's even obvious in the titles:

• Washington Post "Insurgent bloc of House conservatives proving to be a thorn in Boehner’s side"
• Chicago Sun-Times "Sweet: Emanuel says House GOP needs to work through ‘some issues’"
• Japan Times "Ryan puts GOP’s far-right Freedom Caucus on notice, will only chase House speaker post if there’s unity"

The others are similar in this regard. Every single one only calls the group far right in the context of the House Republicans. Not as an absolute. Only as a relative.

This is not a statement that I can revert and give as my opinion, I don't have an opinion, I don't care two cents about this issue as such. I have no dog in this fight. I personally didn't know there was such a thing as the Freedom Caucus before looking at the RfC (though I knew there were some groups among House Republicans, I'm darned if I could actually name any of them).

But then, if I don't really care, why is this such a big deal? Why can't I just give in to you here, since you clearly do care, mark it "no consensus", since there are roughly equal numbers of good, devoted, knowledgeable editors on each side, and go on with my life, leaving this to those who do care?

Because it turns out this is a WP:BLP issue. Not just a little. A lot. Because, as TFD wrote, "Reliable sources usually reserve that description for groups such as klansmen and neo-Nazis." I didn't know, but I checked our article Far right which is a redirect to Far right politics. It surprised me. It says "The term is commonly used to describe Nazism,[1] neo-Nazism, Fascism, neo-Fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, or reactionary views,[2] which can lead to oppression and genocide against groups of people on the basis of their alleged inferiority or their alleged threat to the nation or state.[3]" That's the third and last sentence of the lead, quoted in part in my close, and in full now. It surprised me because our article Far left, redirecting to Far left politics doesn't say anything nearly that bad. That's not just "people who want lower taxes and smaller government", or even "people who don't believe in abortion", or "people who don't believe in global warming", which does describe the right wing of the Republican party, and which, I'm sure, most of the Freedom Caucus would be fine with. But by putting the absolute "far right" label on this group, without the "Republican" qualifier, we really are grouping them in with, as TFD writes, "klansmen and neo-Nazis", or as our article writes, "oppression and genocide". That's a really horrible group to be in, not something we can afford to just throw around. Not a single one of those sources, again, found by you, says anything about the Freedom Caucus being klansmen, neo-Nazis, Fascists, neo-Fascists, genociders, or remotely similar. Without truly excellent sources saying that they are, we absolutely can not say that the Freedom Caucus is. They're living people, we can't just go calling them akin to Nazis if they're not. So it's not something we can leave as a "no consensus" issue, it might even be a blockable offense. Again, that surprised me. But that's what our far right article says. --GRuban (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful response... I will be traveling for the next week and might not have the bandwidth to respond until later. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Clarification sought

Greetings. Could you, please, clarify what is meant by the quoted comment, in your decision in the Fleshlight RfC? "...with all due respect to The Gnome, the first sentence of the article clearly states the generic article is artificial vagina." I'm kinda stumped. Thanks in advance. -The Gnome (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

"Even if there were a case for including such an image in a general article on artificial genitalia ...Wolfowitz ; ... does Wikipedia even have an article such as Artificial genitalia? FreeKnowledgeCreator; Yes, dildo, by another name. -The Gnome (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)" --GRuban (talk) 01:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Not that dildo isn't an article on artificial genitalia, just that in this context, clearly AV is the general version, as the first sentence says. --GRuban (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3

I have addressed your concerns. What else can I do to get you to support the nomination?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I do support, I wrote as much at the bottom. On the 17th, I think. Let me confirm there. --GRuban (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You are suppose to bold the term support in a FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. Haven't done many or in a while. Shall. --GRuban (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)